It is known that the well-definiteness of the path integral leads to the Feynman's iε-prescription for the field propagator. I've found many ways of showing this in the literature, but it is precisely the way that I have learned in my QFT course (and which I have not found in literature) that I do not understand.
Context of the problem
Considering the case of a real scalar field for simplicity, one has that the following path integral (evaluated at asymptotic times)
limT→∞∫ϕ(T,→x)ϕ(−T,→x)Dϕ exp(i∫TTdt∫d³x (L+Jϕ))
can be expressed as
\begin{equation} \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{m, n} e^{-i\left(E_n+E_m \right)T} <\phi, T|n, T>_J
where |n>J are eigenstates of the hamiltonian H in the pressence of the source J. In order to make this oscillatory exponential converge (and properly define the path integral) one adds to T a small imaginary part T→T(1−iε). With this, one writes the vacuum persistence amplitude as <0|0>J=1Nlimε→0 limT→∞(1−iε)∫Dϕ exp(i∫T−Tdt∫d³x(L+Jϕ) )≡1NZ[J]
My problem
In order to relate Z[J] with the Feynman propagator DF(x−y), one typically writes the argument of the exponential in the Fourier space, then makes the change of variable ˆϕ(p)′=ˆϕ(p)+(p²−m²)−1ˆJ(p)
Z[J]=Z[0]exp(−i2∫d⁴p(2π)⁴ˆJ(p)1p²−m²ˆJ(−p)).
Now here I've been told that the fact of replacing T→(1−iε)T to define the path integral is equivalent in Fourier space as p⁰→(1+iε)p⁰. With this, one gets the correct iε Feynman prescription for the propagator DF(x−y)
Z[J]=Z[0]exp(−i2∫d⁴p(2π)⁴ˆJ(p)1p²−m²+iεˆJ(−p))=Z[0]exp(−12∫d⁴y∫d⁴x J(x)DF(x−y)J(y)).
And this is the part that I don't get at all, I've tried but I don't see how the fact that T→(1−iε)T leads in the previous approach to p⁰→(1+iε)p⁰ and therefore to the Feynman prescription. I'm having nightmares with this, any help would be really appreciated.
NOTE: I use the following convention for the Fourier transform ˆϕ(p)=∫d⁴x ϕ(x)e−ip⋅x
so that ϕ(x)=∫d⁴p(2π)⁴ ˆϕ(p)e+ip⋅x.
No comments:
Post a Comment